I think the user was saying that even then things are too small
That's how I feel too
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
LG Unveils UltraFine 6K Display With Thunderbolt 5 Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the user was saying that even then things are too small
That's how I feel too
Why would they not? I sit as far away from my 32" displays as I used to sit from my 27" displays which is how far away I sat from my 24" displays, 20" displays and 17" displays, since I have had the same desk setup for years and my 17"-27" iMacs all sat in the same location (and my 32" display is now VESA mounted at the same location).
A 32" 5120x2880 panel will have the same scaling at HiDPI (2x) as a 32" 2560x1440 panel at native (1x), but the 32" panel will not be as "sharp" as a 5120x2880 27" panel due to a lower PPI. But to be honest, scaling is more important to me when using two displays because I do not want windows and objects to change scale. So I would accept the lower PPI of a 32" 5120x2880 panel on my main display as it would match the 2560x1440 of my 32" secondary display so windows and objects moved between them would not change size.
Agreed. I bought a Samsung Odyssey G7 because even though it is "only" 140ppi (so it is in the "bad zone" for retina), it scores exceptionally high on "readability" in both Windows and macOS on many trusted review sites. So while it is not as "sharp" as my iMac 5K, text is still very readable and I suffer no eyestrain or fatigue looking at my screen 16 hours a day.
That would be a personal view, then. I have never found text or objects on the iMac 5K, Apple Studio Display or Apple Pro Display to be "too small" when run in HiDPI (2x). So one's mileage shall clearly vary.
That would be a personal view, then. I have never found text or objects on the iMac 5K, Apple Studio Display or Apple Pro Display to be "too small" when run in HiDPI (2x). So one's mileage shall clearly vary.
It sounds like you're also a long timer with Apple
We should all remember that Apple used to have a different "blessed" size of objects on screen that was "correct" (things were larger)
Honestly, ultimately, I just wish they'd invest in making macOS way better at non-integer scaling. This is one area where Windows just destroys macOS
I find text on my iMac 5K too small.
Text size on macOS is perfect on the 30” 2560x1600 (101 ppi) Apple Cinema HD Display.
Text size on macOS is perfect on the 30” 2560x1600 (101 ppi) Apple Cinema HD Display.
A "pixel-dense screen" isn't a standard recognized by anyone and it would appear you've made up that standard for yourself. Giving an exact number is even more out of touch since again, it depends entirely on the application.
Hollywood production cinema at 4k on the big screen is only around 10 ppi -- it must amaze you that anyone could even tolerate watching such a low pixel density
And many still use ~1080p projectors since it still looks good with 4k content, as it's effectively 4:4:4 subsampling and low compression makes for a high bitrate 1080p, but still only about 5 ppi.It's the same in print. 300 DPI for high-quality prints but a high-quality billboard might be 20-40 DPI.
Handheld panels need higher resolution than pretty much any other since they're the closest -- why would their resolution be relevant for large panels? The same way a 218 ppi would be poor in a camera EVF.
Higher than 16k? For what? What are you displaying that needs that kind of resolution?
4k is the upper standard for video and, worse yet, it's still mostly 8-bit 4:2:0 chroma subsampling along with compression. Cinema cameras filming ~4k at 600 Mb/s yet final product is 50 Mb/s, for example. So we have a long way to go before we even saturate 4k video quality. 4k gaming is still the upper standard and requires the upper-spec'd GPUs with lots of VRAM and now tricks like DLSS to invent frames.
Many would argue the slow 60Hz framerate makes any display the "McDonalds" quality -- certainly too slow for gaming but also for video because it gives 3-2 judder on the common 24fps video, unlike 120 Hz or higher displays. Imagine paying $5k for a 6k monitor but it's only 60Hz. Other qualities like bit depth, colour spaces and accuracy, and HDR of course are other significant contributors to apparent quality.
And if it's for general computer use otherwise, what would you need 8k or 16k for? According to Apple, "retina" is the limit at which your eyes cannot discern any more, so why go further? Is your text in Xcode going to be that much sharper? Is it that much sharper over 4k at normal viewing distances? Enough to warrant the 2-3x cost and loss of high-refresh options?
4K UHD is the lowest accepted video resolution for all major studios and streaming services. They will also not accept anything less than 10-bit 240Mbps intraframe codecs. It's true that everything is mastered to 4K UHD but not the actual recording.
Most approved cinema cameras shoot much higher resolution and either lightly compressed or uncompressed RAW. A few cameras on the approved lists only shoot at 4K DCI (4096x2160). One of the advantages of shooting at much higher resolution is framing, zoom and crop control or the ability to oversample 8K to 4K for improved color fidelity, "sharpness / crispness" and better shadow quality. VFX plates and motion capture are also much better with higher resolution video.
Working on a high resolution display gives you the ability to show the full resolution video for delivery (4K UHD) while still giving you access to your timeline and controls. It is also awesome for photography and printed media. Even Microsoft Excel warriors will love the added screen real estate etc.
Most applications show the media at 1:1 scaling while the UI is scaled correctly when using HiDPI resolutions.
It sounds like you haven't seen an 31.5-inch 4K UHD and 8K UHD monitor next to each other. The difference is absurdly clear at normal viewing distances (40-60 cm) and extreme when pixel peeping high resolution media at closer distances.
Before Apple decided to push the world into the "retina" era most PCs would still come with 8-bit TN panels with downright bad viewing angles and low resolution. We are pushing boundaries here.
Yes, Dough: a total scam company. Not even kidding—their monitor designs are absolutely on point, but they almost never deliver. And even if they do (like through Amazon, for example), you’d better pray nothing goes wrong with your monitor. Their customer service straight up doesn’t exist, and that’s not even an exaggeration.
Last edited:
It will have bezels, those are 3D renders and LG famously always exagerate their monitor renders, sadly.
It's not if the monitor is 60hz. If, as supposed by many, it renders at 120hz or more, then it's a necessity.
Either for 120Hz or to act as a Thunderbolt dock or to daisy-chain additional displays.
I want to buy a display... please stop, for Christ sake, why do people want an average webcam and average sound with their monitors... I'm so against this philosophy.
you're kidding right? 218PPI is exactly where it's perfect for MacOS...
lol you can dream about it, even my 1.2-1.5K$ is VERY optimistic, realistically it will probably be around 1.5K-2.5K$, and knowing LG, probably around 2.5K$ (which I then won't buy). If 60hz, anything higher than 2.5K$ is completely stupid and no-one in their right mind should buy it.
"Slap on a chin"... no, just make it 2-4cm thicker and please nuke any chin in this market, they are ugly to look at.I was thinking the exact same thing!
Slap on a chin with some M4 Max goodness inside with plenty of I/O and add a top bezel with a conference camera and jam in some speakers...c'est voila, 32" 6K iMac AIO bliss! One cord to rule them all! LOL In the meantime the Mini and Studio folks can just go out buy this LG unit (or not) and be on their merry way.
Win, win!
Oh well... LG being LG, annoucing a very good product... 9 months before it's release lol. By then I'll have the monitors I'm looking for.
All of the makers took too long on a 32" 5k for me
I've moved on to using a 65" OLED in my living room
Not for everyone of course, but I actually totally love it
One day might get an 8k there to really dial it up -- but from my distance and for my situation, even the 4k has been phenomenal --- the OLED part is what I really love
It doesn’t, but it is also a Thunderbolt hub.
I was predicting US$2299 retail with sales under US$2000 first year, but even that might be optimistic.
LG has made no release date statement. He was talking about the Acer 31.5” 5K. Actually, I’m more interested in this class. The 186 ppi pixel density is better for macOS IMO, because I find 218 ppi renders text and screen elements too small for my liking for a desktop. I never liked this aspect of my 27” 5K iMac. The 186 ppi of 31.5” 5120x2880 would render things a tad large but I’d rather have too large than too small. Furthermore, I’ve used 92 ppi and found it was easy to get used to that size, and 186 ppi would be about the Retina version of that. The Goldilocks zone IMO would be 200 ppi, which would render things the same size as the 30” Apple Cinema HD Display (which I also own).
Unfortunately, the Acer is not very nice looking. Other companies may use this panel, but the panel is not IPS Black either. On the flip side, it should be way, way cheaper than the LG 6K.
Can M4 Mini drive it just at 60Hz and gets downgraded TB4 instead of TB5 functionality?
Given that some users have HiDPI issues with some monitors, I wonder if there will be similar issue driving it from Mini M4 Pro or M4.
The reports have only mentioned 60 Hz so it's fairly safe to say there is no 120 Hz support. And that should not come as a surprise. And yes the TB5 hub should work fine with TB4, just at TB4 speeds.
The M4 doesn't have as many HiDPI options as the M4 Pro, even on 4K monitors. Those missing HiDPI options appear to be for resolutions over 30XXxXXXX. Remember, macOS renders those resolutions internally at 2X, meaning a 3200x1800 resolution would be rendered at 6400x3600 internally, and then scaled back down to the monitor's native resolution. The M4 should be able to handle this AFAIK, but in macOS it is not supported on the M4 (or M3 or M2 or M1).
Thanks. Does that mean if I connect a M4 Mini to a 4K display, the HiDPI option will not show up?
So if I may buy a 6K monitor (be it this one or from the other brand) and run HiDPI, it is better to get a M4 Pro Mini even on paper, the M4 should be able to do it?
What are the advantages of using a 6K monitor? I tried the Samsung 5K 27" last year and liked the resolutions more than 4K. However, I returned it due to QC issues (dead pixels, dust under screen, backlight bleed, etc.) on multiple replacements.
Lol 40-60cm ain’t the normal viewing distance for 32”, 60cm is like the minimum…